For what purpose are these vessels?

What standard do they comply with?

Who did you enquire with?

Garry, if your cylinder holds under 500cc of air,under current uk laws it does not require testing, i have been making pcp airguns over 25 years,but i test each of my cylinders to a third above the working pressure,.i can assure you the vast majority of british pcps manufacturers dont test each rifle.

When i made my first cylinder i hydrostatically tested it, then i took it to Lloyds british, and got them to test it, to make sure what i was doing was safe and correct.

If for PCP air rifles why not buy from air rifle makers as they have made bottles ready?

It seems likely that in the UK the Pressure Equipment Regulations (UK enactment of the Pressure Equipment Directive) would apply (if supplying these for beyond your own use).

The classification of the vessel described by the OP when used for compressed air would be 'Sound Engineering Practice' (the lowest category) – there is no specific requirement to involve any third party in review/witnessing of either design or manufacture/testing for SEP items.

There are requirements regarding marking, and provision of adequate instructions.

A Technical File should be prepared to cover the design, materials used, inspection & test – this would be a significant part of the manufacturer's defence if an incident did occur.

PED generally expects a pressure test, but does accept (justified) alternatives.

Don't forget to consider the potential for fatigue failure in this application.

Russell – The Simple Pressure Vessel Directive relates to series produced welded vessels for use up to 30 bar, so is not applicable in this particular case.

Edited By David Jupp on 14/01/2016 09:52:03

The exemption from PER is for items specifically designed and constructed for military purposes.

I'm honestly not clear if weapons automatically fall under this exemption, or if the exemption only covers use within the armed forces. Happy to be enlightened by those with specific knowledge.

Either way the approach required by PER would be a good place to start and isn't particularly onerous. I suspect materials certification/traceability might well be a stumbling block for some though.

We are obviously looking at different legislation – PER and PSSR.

Mick,

I am not qualified to advise, but: The HSE guidance contains this fairly explicit statement:

MichaelG.

.

Edit: Free download of PSSR 2000 available here.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 15/01/2016 10:12:58

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 15/01/2016 10:25:07

Mick,

I didn't say it was easy … just that it was fairly explicit

The first point to mention is that my link is to the revised version of the document; which appears to be a considerable improvement on the original. … They have obviously tried to make it more compehensible ['though it's still very hard going].

Perhaps the most useful 'point of entry' is the new Appendix 4. …. I fully accept that this is specific to Schools, but at least it is relevant to your sort of machine.

The applicability of these "at work" regulations to the Amateur will [I think] always be a matter of judgement, and ultimately you are likely to be governed by the interpretation used by your Insurers.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. … I expect to have some 'quiet time' over the next few weeks, so might read the documents more carefully.

One interesting thing about the Code of Practice is it make its clear that the USER of a model steam engine not the OWNER is the responsible person. This suggests that clubs who, as long as they make reasonable efforts to ensure members using a club engine are competent, could then argue they were not responsible if the member caused an accident . I can't see it as licence to just hand an engine over to an unsupervised beginner.

Neil